JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C), is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.10.1999/15.10.1999, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Anti Corruption, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 1994, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellants Aditya Pratap Singh, Smt. Kalawati and Manvendra Singh under section 304B of I.P.C., and sentenced each one of them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. Said court has also convicted the accused/appellants under section 498A of I.P.C., and sentenced each one of them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. The trial court has further convicted the accused/appellants under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and sentenced each one of them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 05.05.1992, accused/appellant no.3 Manvendra Singh got married to Usha Devi (deceased), and after the marriage she started living in his matrimonial house in Dehradun, with her husband Manvendra Singh, and his parents Aditya Pratap Singh (father in law) and Smt. Kalawati (mother in law). It is alleged in the First Information Report that after the marriage the three accused/appellants and Sangeeta Devi (sister in law of the deceased) started harassing to Usha Devi, as they were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage. Prosecution has further alleged that Usha Devi was beaten several times by her husband and in laws whereafter she left her matrimonial house, and after staying for sometime with her uncles in District Sultanpur U.P., she went to Ahmedabad where her mother and brother used to live. After some days of reaching her there, the accused/appellants went to Ahmedabad, they promised that they would not commit any cruelty against her and brought Usha Devi back to Dehradun. However, in the intervening night on 28th and 29th of June 1994, Usha Devi died of burn injuries in her matrimonial house. The police from nearest police outpost on receiving information went to the spot took the dead body in their possession, and prepared inquest report (Ex-A24) on 29.06.1994. The police further prepared police form no. However, in the intervening night on 28th and 29th of June 1994, Usha Devi died of burn injuries in her matrimonial house. The police from nearest police outpost on receiving information went to the spot took the dead body in their possession, and prepared inquest report (Ex-A24) on 29.06.1994. The police further prepared police form no. 13 (Ex A-20), sketch of the dead body (Ex A- 19), letter to Chief Medical Officer (Ex A-23) requesting for post mortem examination. 4. PW10 Dr. Jaydeep Dutta of Doon Hospital alongwith Dr. R.S. Gupta conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Usha Devi on 30.06.1994 and prepared autopsy report (EX A-14), the team of doctors opined that deceased had died due to extensive ante mortem burn injuries suffered by her. It appears since the relatives of the parental side of the deceased were either in District Sultanpur (U.P.), or in Ahmedabad (State of Gujrat). The First Information Report (Ex-A1) could be lodged only 03.07.1994, by PW2 Jantri Singh (uncle of the deceased). On the basis of said report Crime No. 23 of 1994 was registered relating to offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., against accused/appellants namely Manvendra Singh (husband), Aditya Pratap Singh (father in law) and Smt. Kalawati (mother in law) and Sangeeta (sister in law ). Investigation was conducted by PW14 Om Prakash Yadav Deputy Superintendent of Police, who interrogated the witnesses and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet (Ex -A25) against the accused/appellants Aditya Pratap Singh, Manvendra Singh and Smt. Kalawati, and also as against Km. Rajshree @ Sangeeta (sister in law of the deceased), for their trial in respect of offences punishable under section 498A and 304 B of I.P.C., and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 5. The Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. On 05.01.1995, after hearing the parties the trial court framed charge of offences punishable under section 498A and 304B of I.P.C., and one punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the accused namely Aditya Pratap Singh, Manvendra Singh, Smt. Kalawati and Sangeeta to which on them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 05.01.1995, after hearing the parties the trial court framed charge of offences punishable under section 498A and 304B of I.P.C., and one punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the accused namely Aditya Pratap Singh, Manvendra Singh, Smt. Kalawati and Sangeeta to which on them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Shobha Gupta (declared hostile), PW2 Jantri Singh (informant and uncle of the deceased), PW3 Shiv Kumar (another uncle of the deceased), PW4 Smt. Prema Devi (mother of the deceased), PW5 Daan Bahadur (brother of the deceased), PW6 Smt. Saroj Bhatnagar (neighbour of the accused/appellants), PW7 Anoop Kumar Mishra (another neighbour of the accused/appellants, who was also witness of the recovery memos prepared by the police), PW8 Rajeev Kumar Goyal (a fair price shop licensee who sold kerosene oil, partly hostile), PW9 Dr. Dalip Kumar Mishra (another neighbour of the accused/appellants), PW1 0 Dr. Jaydeep Dutta (who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased), PW1 1 Constable Ved Prakash (who made entry in the General Diary at the police outpost on receiving information in the morning at about 5.30 a.m. on 03.06.1994 about the incident of unnatural death of the deceased), PW12 Amit Jain (scribe of the F.I.R), PW13 Sub Inspector Ram Surat Singh Yadav (who prepared the inquest report) and PW14 Om Prakash Yadav (Circle Officer/Deputy S.P., who investigated the crime). 6. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused by the trial court under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply the accused/appellants pleaded before the trial court that they did not commit any cruelty against the deceased, they also stated that Usha Devi was suffering from tuberculosis. In defence DW1 Ram Raj Singh, brother of accused Kalawati, DW2 Dr. Raman Nakra (homeopathic physician) and DW3 Dr. Savita Goyal, were got examined. The trial court after hearing the parties found that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offences punishable under section 498A and 304B of I.P.C., and one punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the three accused/appellants Aditya Pratap Singh, Smt. Kalawati and Manvendra Singh, and convicted them accordingly. However, the charge is said to be not proved beyond reasonable doubt as against accused/appellant Raj Shree @ Sangeeta (sister in law of the deceased), who was acquitted of the charge. However, the charge is said to be not proved beyond reasonable doubt as against accused/appellant Raj Shree @ Sangeeta (sister in law of the deceased), who was acquitted of the charge. After hearing on sentence each one of the convicts was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under section 304B of I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under section 498A of I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 13.10.1999/15.10.1999, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Anti Corruption, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 1994, this appeal was preferred by the convicts before Allahabad High Court from where it is received by transfer under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act 2000 (central Act 29 of 2000), for its disposal. 7. Before further discussion this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the observations made by PW10 Dr. Jaydeep Dutta in the autopsy report (Ex-A14) after conducting post mortem examination on dead body of Usha Devi with Dr. R.S. Gupta. The observation made in the autopsy report regarding the dead body are as under:- ‘ A badly charred female body in pugilistic attitude flexion et and elbow fingers and wrist of both upper limbs beneath the flexion. Only part of right hand dorsum and sole of left foot partly burnt (grade I) vesiction and peeling of skin present on the right dorsum of hand. Singeing of hair of scalp present and some hairs preserved. Burnt pieces of clothes were sticking to body and tissues alongwith pieces of ropes mouth closed.’ On internal examination, the team of medical officers observed that bones of the scalp were fractured membranes were charred, brain was shrunken and dry. In the thorax, walls were badly charred. In the abdomen peritoneum was found charred, according to PW10 Dr. Jaydeep Dutta cause of the death of the deceased was shock as a result of extensive ante mortem burn injuries suffered by the deceased. The above mentioned burn injuries found on the deceased on her body of 13.06.1994, shows that Usha Devi had died burn injuries. In the abdomen peritoneum was found charred, according to PW10 Dr. Jaydeep Dutta cause of the death of the deceased was shock as a result of extensive ante mortem burn injuries suffered by the deceased. The above mentioned burn injuries found on the deceased on her body of 13.06.1994, shows that Usha Devi had died burn injuries. It is also observed by the team of doctors in the autopsy report (Ex-A14) that the body was about one and half day old. As such, it is suggestive of the fact that the deceased had died in intervening night on 28 and 29th of June 1994. Now, this Court has to examine whether accused/appellants have made demand of dowry, and subjected the deceased to cruelty soon before her unnatural death or not. 8. Admittedly, the accused/appellant no.3 Manvendra Singh got married to Usha Devi (deceased). It is also admitted that accused/appellant no.1 Aditya Pratap Singh is father in law of the deceased and accused/appellant no.2 Kalawati is mother in law of the deceased. It is also not disputed that marriage of Manvendra Singh was solemnized with Usha Devi (deceased) in May 1991. From the medical evidence discussed above based on the autopsy report it is established that Usha Devi has died unnatural death in the year 1994. 9. Section 304B of I.P.C. provides that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. 10. It is also pertinent to mention here that section 11 3B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. 11. 11. PW2 Jantri Singh (uncle of the deceased) has stated that his brother Dal Bahadur had died, and his widow and children used to live in Ahmedabad. The witness has further told that the marriage of his niece Usha Devi (late daughter of Dal Bahadur) was solemnized with accused Manvendra Singh. The witness has further stated that when Usha Devi started living with her husband and in laws in Dehradun, after a period of six months of her marriage, she came to Village Kaparya (District Sultanpur U.P). She told that she was being subjected to cruelty by her husband, mother in law and father in law. The witness (PW2) has further stated that the deceased told him that her husband and in laws were making demand of Rs. 25,000/-. PW2 Jantri Singh further told that for six months, his niece (Usha Devi) lived with him in the Village, before she was taken to her brother Daan Bahadur to Ahmedabad. PW2 Jantri Singh further stated that from Ahmedabad, he was told that since the husband and in laws of Usha Devi had shown repentance for their acts and they were allowed to take her from Ahmedabad again to Dehradun. The witness further told that in 1994, he got information through the police that Usha Devi has died on burn injuries. This witness has proved First Information Report (Ex-A1) lodged by him after he came from District Sultanpur to Dehradun. 12. PW3 Shiv Kumar is another uncle of the deceased and he too has corroborated the statement of PW2 Jantri Singh. 13. PW4 Prema Devi is mother of the deceased, she has stated that when his daughter Usha Devi came back to Ahmedabad, she told about the demand of dowry made by her husband, father in law and mother in law, and that she (deceased) was physically beaten by them. The witness further told that Usha Devi had shown her marks of injury on her body. PW4 Prema Devi (mother of the deceased) has further told that the accused/appellants Aditya Pratap Singh and Kalawati came there and promised that Usha Devi would not be beaten in future whereafter she allowed her daughter to go with them with reluctance. She further told that after few months she came to know that her daughter has been killed. 14. PW4 Prema Devi (mother of the deceased) has further told that the accused/appellants Aditya Pratap Singh and Kalawati came there and promised that Usha Devi would not be beaten in future whereafter she allowed her daughter to go with them with reluctance. She further told that after few months she came to know that her daughter has been killed. 14. PW5 Dan Bahadur, is the brother of the deceased, who has fully corroborated the statement of his mother (PW4 Prema Devi). This witness has further told that before the death of his sister, he received her letter complaining about cruelty he went to meet her to Dehradun, but the accused/appellants did not allow him to meet her. This witness has also stated that he got information about the death of his sister through the police. 15. In the present case, apart from the evidence of four relatives of the deceased regarding the cruelty committed by the accused/appellants against the deceased for non fulfillment of demand of dowry, the neighbours of the accused/appellants have also deposed before the court about the behavior of the accused/appellants towards Usha Devi. PW6 Smt Saroj Bhatnagar has stated that after few days of marriage of Manvendra Singh with Usha Devi, she was subjected to cruelty by the accused/appellants. She further told that Usha Devi once told her about the fact that her husband, mother in law and father in law used to beat her. This witness has further told that Usha Devi told her about the demand of dowry made by the accused/appellants. PW6 Saroj Bhatnagar further told that on the day of incident when smoke started coming out in the night from the house of appellants, she alongwith her husband went there and wanted to enter in the house Kalawati (mother in law of the deceased) told that there is no need to go inside as there was nothing to be seen there. 16. Anoop Kumar Mishra is also neighbour of the deceased, has told that in the intervening night on 28th and 29th of June 1994, he heard noise from the house of the accused/appellants and by jumping the wall he went inside the house and saw that Usha Devi was found lying on the ground under the burnt cot with her charred body. The witness has further told that he immediately informed the police, in the early hours of 29th of June 1994, and police came from the outpost. This witness has also proved the recovery memos prepared by police, and the container of kerosene oil etc. This witness is a home guard. 17. PW9 Dalip Kumar Mishra, who is also neighbour of the accused/appellants he has stated that at about 2.30 a.m., on 29.06.1994, his mother made him wake up as the noise was coming from the house of the accused/appellants. The witness further stated that he jumped the wall to enter in the house of accused/appellants in an attempt to extinguish the fire, and asked accused/appellants Aditya Pratap Singh, Manvendra Singh and Smt. Kalawati to provide clothes so that fire could be extinguished, but they did not allow him to do so and told that there is nothing left to be done. 18. On re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, and after going through the statements of the witnesses, this Court is in full agreement with the trial court that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offences punishable under section 304B and 498A of I.P.C., and one punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the accused/appellants Aditya Pratap Singh, Manvendra Singh and Kalawati. 19. DW1 Ram Raj Singh, who is real brother of accused Kalawati has stated that there was no demand of dowry made by the accused/appellants. But this witness lives in Village Kaparya, District Sultanpur, and Usha Devi (deceased) appears to had never gone to his house, as such, his testimony in support of accused/appellants is of little help to them. DW2 Dr. Raman Nakra, who is homeopathic physician has stated that on 04.06.1993, Usha Devi was came to his clinic with the complaint of fever and loss of appetite. The witness further told that he advised Mantoux test. DW3 Dr. Savita Goyal has stated that Mantoux test of Usha Devi was found positive. However, she has admitted that said test is not sufficient to declare that Usha Devi was suffering from tuberculosis. When she was asked regarding production of the record, she told to the trial court that the same was not available with her as the matter was more than two years old (Her statement was recorded in the year 1999). However, she has admitted that said test is not sufficient to declare that Usha Devi was suffering from tuberculosis. When she was asked regarding production of the record, she told to the trial court that the same was not available with her as the matter was more than two years old (Her statement was recorded in the year 1999). From the statements of the three defence witnesses there is nothing on the basis of which it can be the testimony of the prosecution witnesses can be doubted that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. 20. Therefore, this Court is of the view that conviction recorded by the trial court against the accused/appellants under section 304B and 498A of I.P.C., and one punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, requires no interference. On the point of sentence also it requires no interference so far as the same relates to the accused/appellant Manvendra Singh (husband of the deceased). However, considering the age of the accused/appellants no.1 and 2, who are father in law and mother in law respectively, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years awarded under section 304B of I.P.C., can be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years to meet the ends of justice. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the direction that the impugned judgment and order dated 13.10.1999/15.10.1999, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Anti Corruption, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 1994, convicting the accused/appellants Aditya Pratap Singh, Kalawati and Manvendra Singh under section 304B and 498A of I.P.C., and one punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is hereby affirmed. The sentence awarded by the trial court against the accused/appellant no.3 Manvendra Singh is also affirmed. However, the sentence awarded against each of the accused/appellant no.1 Aditya Pratap Singh and accused/ appellant no.2 Kalawati is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under section 304B of I.P.C. The sentence in respect of other offence is not interfered with. Accused/appellants are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. They shall surrender before the court concerned, and serve out the remaining part of the sentence as mentioned above. Lower court record be sent back.